Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

delcecchi

Gary Johnson, Nation Review POV.

72 posts in this topic

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives

‘Never Gary Johnson’: He’s Not Conservative and Not Even All That Libertarian
 
 by James Spiller May 23, 2016 4:00 AM
 
Write in a name if you must, but don’t be misled by the label ‘Libertarian.’ What to do? The awfulness of Donald Trump and the awfulness of Hillary Clinton can make conservative Republicans feel helpless. We shouldn’t. We still have the power to do tremendous good — or harm. Whoever wins, we have lost this presidential election, but we may still end up with most of the governorships and control of most state legislatures. If we lose Congress, we’ll likely get it back in the midterm. The triumphant return of conservatism at the presidential level has been postponed, but not permanently. Trump supporters might say we have nothing to lose, but we do — this is still the greatest country on earth. One way to help lose American conservatism would be to support Gary Johnson, the Libertarian party’s presumptive nominee for president.
 
There are many responses to that assertion. The most common is “What’s the worst he would do, leave us alone?” The assumption is that someone whose label is “Libertarian” has libertarian values and would promote them in office. In the case of Johnson, that notion is absurd.
 
When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico in 1995, the budget stood at $4.397 billion. When he left in 2003, it had grown to $7.721 billion, an increase of 7.29 percent a year.
 
Of the eleven governors who filed to run for president this year (two Democrats, Johnson, and eight Republicans), only one had a worse record on spending growth. In New Mexico, Bill Richardson, Johnson’s Democratic successor, clocked in a little better than he did, but Richardson’s successor, Susana Martinez, has shown what a fiscal conservative looks like: New Mexico currently spends less than it did when she took office. It’s not just at a state level that being more fiscally conservative than Johnson is a bipartisan achievement. Federal spending during the time Johnson was in office grew at an average annual rate of 4.49 percent.
 
Late Clinton and early Bush weren’t as successful in their efforts to fight spending cuts as they might have been, but Johnson makes them look like Coolidge, and federal spending since then has grown at an average annual rate of 4.56 percent. The assumption is that someone whose label is ‘Libertarian’ has libertarian values and would promote them in office. In the case of Johnson, that notion is absurd. Johnson also claims to have balanced the budget every year, but what he means by this is that he complied with the New Mexico constitution, which as a practical matter prohibits operational spending deficits. New Mexico’s debt is required to be off the books, or at least off those books, in a separate “capital outlay” budget. This means that of course his operating budgets were balanced; New Mexico makes the alternative impossible. The capital outlays are considered “balanced” if it is believed that they can likely be paid for in the future, and rosy assumptions are permitted. It’s as if you or I claimed to be debt-free because our current account, which does not allow for overdrafts, had no overdrafts, despite our taking out ever more maxed-out credit cards and making minimum payments on each. In the sense that Johnson says he balanced the budgets, every president and Congress in history has passed balanced federal budgets 100 percent of the time. In fact, Johnson inherited a debt of $1.8 billion and left a debt of $4.6 billion, a rate of increase unmatched by the 22 governors in either party who have filed for presidential primaries in the past two decades, with the exception of Governor Tom Vilsack (D., Iowa) in 2007. During every year that Johnson, as he says, balanced the budget, he added to the debt.
 
As with so many big-government types, government growth under his administration was greater not only quantitatively but qualitatively. That is, he expanded government into new and illegitimate areas. Most notably, he created a new form of the refundable tax credit, a film subsidy that has since spread like a cancer across America.
 
Plenty of other governors imitated Johnson’s pattern of buying publicity, including photo opportunities with celebrities, by paying, cash down, for filmmakers to move out of some other state; traditional subsidies just weren’t generous enough to enable states to compete.
 
Like Trump this cycle, Johnson in 2012 proposed cartoonish plans to cut spending. Trump promises to achieve savings of more than 100 percent on various costs; Johnson promised a less radical-sounding, but still implausible, 43 percent budget cut in the first year. Like Trump, he demonstrates no interest in even the vaguest outlines of fiscal policy. Johnson would turn much of the government over to the states and make them make the cuts. Fine. But he showed no interest, either, in detailing the cuts he promised to defense or to the federal court system. His Social Security cuts were on the order of a few percent at most in the first year. No one who seriously wants to cut spending thinks that a 43 percent cut — which would entail costs associated with, for example, closing bases — followed by stasis in subsequent years makes more sense than, say, a 35 percent cut in year one followed by a 15 percent cut in year two.
 
In 2016, Johnson has forgotten all that. His promises on spending extend all the way to the promise to balance the budget. Again, he gives little detail. The section “Government Spending” on his campaign page includes the false and hypocritical claim that debt repeatedly doubled under Obama and Bush. (It only nearly did so; the multipliers are 1.86 for Bush, 1.81 for Obama so far, and 2.53 for Johnson as governor.)
 
Here, the closest thing to a spending policy is Johnson’s stated commitment to look at the budget closely, veto any budget with a deficit, and pass a balanced budget. The focus of Johnson’s fiscal policy can be found under “Taxes,” a different section of his page. There he makes his case for a a consumption tax. The closest parallel can probably be found in Mike Huckabee’s 2008 campaign, which was heavy on the FairTax and also also light on spending cuts.
 
On public financing of political campaigns, the one issue on which Johnson has gone into significant detail, he said in 2012 that he would increase spending. The biggest Libertarian-party message of 2012 was “Vote Libertarian one time.” If the party got 5 percent of the vote in 2012, it would have qualified for public funding for its private political speech in 2016 and would have been the only political party to receive this uniquely anti-libertarian subsidy. (The two major parties raise too much money to qualify for funding for the presidential campaign.)
 
This cycle, Johnson has not addressed the public-funding issue, but he does address the problem of the major parties’ having access to inordinate private funds, aligning himself with Sanders on the larger issue of campaign finance. Those of you with keen memories will note, incidentally, the discrepancy between his pro-choice rhetoric in this video and his moderate pro-life rhetoric when in a Republican debate four years ago.
 
His campaign page takes the middle road: It notes the late-term-abortion ban (although not the counseling requirement) that he supported as governor and that he told Republicans about, but those positions are described in the past tense, without any indication of his current position. Whatever you believe the principled libertarian position on abortion is, it probably doesn’t involve telling conservatives that you would increase restrictions and then suggesting to progressives that the practice should be unrestricted.
 
On civil liberties as with fiscal issues, Johnson’s record is less libertarian than that of his successors as governor of New Mexico, and even of most other governors and presidents. Bill Richardson, his immediate successor, introduced concealed carry. Susana Martinez succeeded Richardson and got rid of civil-asset forfeiture. Johnson’s successors enacted sound libertarian reforms, including measures against eminent-domain abuse and Johnson’s government involvement in markets. This cycle, Johnson has declared against freedom of association for bakers and florists.
 
Other than supporting drug legalization, in which he has a substantial personal financial interest, there appears to be very little in his record or agenda that National Review readers would find appealing. Some argue that one has a moral duty to vote for a candidate on the ballot rather than write in a name. Johnson will be on the ballot in all fifty states, but his participation in the general election will be no more sincere than his effort four years ago to secure the Republican nomination.
 
Rather, he has repeatedly used the electoral process to enhance his personal standing and now seeks to use it to build a patronage machine. He claims that the machine pursues libertarian ends, but it does not restrict itself to them and has never achieved them. Not only does Johnson’s faction seek the anti-libertarian objective of public campaign funding, but it tilts elections to Democrats. The potential negative impact of the Libertarian party can be clearly seen in the election for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota in 2008. Al Franken beat Norm Coleman by 215 votes, with the Libertarian party netting 13,916 votes for a candidate focused on economic issues, particularly drilling.
 
A little more than a year later, Obamacare passed with 60 votes, Franken providing the 60th. With public funds and a professional ground game diverting votes, who knows what Congress might pass? As Libertarian-party activists like to say, don’t vote for the lesser evil. If you want a libertarian, please consider writing in Janice Rogers Brown or Penn Jillette.
 
If you want someone who isn’t a barbarian, please consider Mitch Daniels. By all means, give up on this year’s presidential race if you must, but please don’t throw away 2020.
 
— James Spiller is an attorney living in Washington, D.C. He writes on Ricochet.com as James of England.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/ary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the televised Libertarian debate, I thought Johnson was the least Libertarian of the 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Big Dave2 said:

In the televised Libertarian debate, I thought Johnson was the least Libertarian of the 3.

Weren't you one of the ones advocating for him last cycle? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same reason you were advocating for Mitt last cycle and now you will be advocating for Trump. They are closest thing to your beliefs in the race. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read more at

 

 

Why!  :crazy::crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Finns said:

Read more at

 

 

Why!  :crazy::crazy:

 

I tried to click on the link, and all I got was "page not found".  They might have been getting into the juicy hookers and blow part in that section..

Finns likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

 

I tried to click on the link, and all I got was "page not found".  They might have been getting into the juicy hookers and blow part in that section..

Same link as I posted at the top of the article.   Looks like they had a typo.  I posted the whole thing anyway.  I thought the crew of Johnson aficionados here might be interested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's an even longer list of why Trump is not "conservative".

Starnes: Donald Trump is not a conservative

Todd Starnes

By Todd Starnes

 Published April 22, 2016 
 
 
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
 
NOW PLAYING

Trump team: We're not trying to 'fool' conservative voters

What sort of man is lurking deep inside Donald Trump’s innards?

We were led to believe that Mr. Trump was one of us -- a conservative of the gun-toting, Bible-clinging variety.

But friends, Mr. Trump is no conservative. His talk is far different from his walk.

Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch: a must-read for Conservatives!

Fox News confirms that senior campaign aides assured Republicans in private that the Trump we’ve seen on the campaign trail is not going to be the same Trump we get in the White House. 

“When he’s out on that stage, when he’s talking about the kinds of things he’s talking about on the stump, he’s projecting an image that’s for that purpose,” Trump strategist Paul Manafort said behind closed doors. 

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.See Latest Coverage →

“You’ll start to see more depth of the person, the real person,” he added. “You’ll see a real different guy.”

The Associated Press reported that Trump’s aides mentioned the need to “moderate his brash personality.”

“The part that he’s been playing is evolving into the part that now you’ve been expected, but he wasn’t ready for, because he had first to complete the first phase,” Manifold said. “The image is going to change.”

Evolving? Projecting an image? Moderating?

Back in the South those are code words for snookered, two-faced and phony-as-a-two-dollar-bill.

Oh, Donald. What have you done? Say it isn’t so.

“Donald Trump is telling the American people that he’s lying to us,” Sen. Ted Cruz said on the campaign trail Friday. “His campaign is now run by Washington lobbyists.”

If true, Mr. Trump is no different than the Establishment Republicans who so effortlessly betrayed and abandoned the base of the party. 

The man is campaigning as a conservative — but I’d be willing to bet a pair of Corinthians that he’s secretly plotting to govern as a liberal. 

So the question must be asked. When will we see the “real” Donald Trump? 

Will he still send the illegals back from whence they came? Will he still make Mexico pay for the wall? Will he really bring jobs back to the United States? Will he defend the American working man?

And what does it mean when his campaign says he will “moderate” his message?

Mr. Trump promised to “Make America Great Again.” Does he really mean that — or does he just want to “Make America Average”?

In just the past few days we’ve seen him begin to waffle on issues like abortion and religious liberty. 

Pro-life groups are extremely concerned by comments he made about rewriting the party’s pro-life platform. 

He also spoke out against North Carolina’s decision to strike down Charlotte’s so-called bathroom bill. 

“The problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic punishment that they’re taking,” he said on the "Today Show."

With all due respect, the problem in North Carolina was big business trying to bully and intimidate moms and dads who want to protect their daughters.

“In the last 48 hours, Donald Trump has come out for grown men going into the bathrooms with little girls,” Cruz said. “That is politically correctness on steroids.”

In the Broadway musical, “The Music Man” the good-hearted people of River City got snookered by a fast-talking swindler named Harold Hill.

Hill enthralled the town folk with tales of depravity – of a culture gone astray. There’s trouble in River City, he famously proclaimed. Trouble with a capital “T”.

He promised that he had the cure for what ailed their town — and they bought what he was selling hook, line and sinker. 

And I’m afraid conservatives have suffered the same fate as the good people of River City. 

There’s trouble in America, folks. Trouble with a capital “T”.

 

 

Edited by Big Dave2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, Donald Trump is a conservative, said no one ever.   

Hope the hail missed you.  Saw a tweet from yesterday about inch and a half hail headed towards belle plaine.  Paul Huttner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

Uh, Donald Trump is a conservative, said no one ever.   

Then why are republicans fawning all over him?

4 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

Hope the hail missed you.  Saw a tweet from yesterday about inch and a half hail headed towards belle plaine.  Paul Huttner. 

We got hail but it wasn't that large where I live. I actually never saw it, I thought it sounded like it was hailing but I didn't bother to get up and look. My son saw pictures people were posting on social media and came running out of his room but it had already melted. He went out and looked at his car that was sitting outside but he didn't notice any damage. The neighbor said the largest they saw was marble size but there were few pieces that were that large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is this James Spiller? Is he some libertarian guru or something? Did a google search to get a feel for who he was but there wasn't anything I can can find on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Big Dave2 said:

Then why are republicans fawning all over him?

We got hail but it wasn't that large where I live. I actually never saw it, I thought it sounded like it was hailing but I didn't bother to get up and look. My son saw pictures people were posting on social media and came running out of his room but it had already melted. He went out and looked at his car that was sitting outside but he didn't notice any damage. The neighbor said the largest they saw was marble size but there were few pieces that were that large.

Glad it missed you...

Voters in Republican Primaries seem to like him better than any of the alternatives in a number of states.  From reading National Review and WSJ I wouldn't say Republicans are fawning all over him.   In fact it seems quite the opposite so far as the Republican establishment is concerned.  You have seen the hashtag #nevertrump, right?   Not coming from Democrats.

1 minute ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Who is this James Spiller? Is he some libertarian guru or something? Did a google search to get a feel for who he was but there wasn't anything I can can find on him.

— James Spiller is an attorney living in Washington, D.C. He writes on Ricochet.com as James of England.

is at the bottom of the article... 
 
And googling ricochet.com spiller came up with this, among others
 
James is a married California attorney whose important work was in Baghdad, working for the Trade Bank of Iraq as its only Western lawyer, often handling questions for its parent, the Ministry of Finance. He has also worked in Cayman, China, and England.

James has an extensive academic background including two master's degrees, a Juris Doctor, and a postgraduate Bachellor's degree in law. His chief academic foci have been on transnational and comparative law and jurisprudence, studying in the UK, California, Virginia, Canada, Mexico, Curacao, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and China.

James has just moved to Madison, Wisconsin, from the DC area and is active in conservative politics (US, not UK). Ricochet.com made him a moderator as a result of his ability to reason persuasively with people from all corners of the conservative to centrist spectrum and awarded him the Richard Epstein Award for impassioned and persuasive academic writing.
 

Member, then Moderator (volunteer)

Ricochet.com
April 2011 – Present (5 years 2 months)Online

I write and comment at Ricochet.com, a political page that has a forum, handles most of National Reviews podcasts, and some of its own, and organizes meetups.
One of Ricochet's chief selling points is the reasonableness of its comment feed, a reasonableness that is maintained through active management, in part by three moderators, of which I am one.
I have also organized a number of meetups (conferences), including Ricochet's second largest (in Kansas City, with talent from National Review, Gov. Brownback's Cabinet, the Goldwater Institute, and other luminaries).
I was awarded the Richard Epstein Award for impassioned and persuasive academic writing, in particular for my piece on the history of marriage licensing and the demonstrably false claim that it is somehow linked to race laws.

Legal Advisor to the Investment and Treasury Department

Trade Bank of Iraq
January 2010 – August 2011 (1 year 8 months)Baghdad, Iraq

The Investment department, we (Ramez Sawabini, Ammar Al-Rikabi and I, with Ramez' excellent secretary, Lubna Kareem) worked on new products, including Iraq's first large scale consumer savings products since the 1958 coup, mortgages (also novel to Iraq) to support the government's flagship housing project, and a private equity fund.

We also worked to launch a stock broker facility, successfully lobbied the ISX and its manager to support bans on insider trading and make other important reforms to the stock market, wrote and delivered presentations (I did not deliver) on various sectors of the Iraqi economy. We dramatically increased the return on our cash holdings with western banks (although, again, I played only a supporting role in those meetings).

As the only western lawyer in the employ of an asset of the Ministry of Finance, I was also involved in matters outside the department, including advising on IMF agreements, Dutch constitutional law as regards their export credit agency, and spent my last month at TBI working on one Kuwait Airways Corporation v. Iraqi Airways Company, a landmark series of cases that was settled shortly after I left, although my involvement there was limited to TBI's position (had the case not been settled, I believe TBI would have been immune from attachment, which was essentially the limit of my advocacy).
Whether we were reforming our trade finance practices, negotiating new agreements with Deutsche over response times that recognized the seriousness with which Iraqi government entities took their religious holidays, I was regularly required to learn about new and often obscure fields of law in short periods, was required to write and speak persuasively for international and domestic audiences, and to engage in large scale business and financial planning. Work hours were initially somewhat short, but Al Qaida's destruction of our office in June 2010 freed us to work from our compound, allowing for 100 hour weeks when needed.

Assistant Fund Manager

CG Asset Management
September 2008 – June 2009 (10 months)London, United Kingdom

Legal work in helping launch a TIPS fund, along with research into the assets of various funds, with an aim to purchasing the funds and dissolving them. The small firm was very conservative, and hence profitable during the crisis, making the experience an unusually positive one for the period.

Intern, then Research Assistant

Jintian and Gongcheng
June 2008 – August 2008 (3 months)Beijing City, China

I reviewed contracts for complex corporate structures, both Chinese structures that used foreign vehicles to provide investor protection for domestic assets and a New York-PRC joint venture.

Volunteer

Romney for America
January 2008 – February 2008 (2 months)

I volunteered full time in New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, California, and Virginia.

----------------------

Volunteer for Romney?   Urp.  Better than Barry.  Trying to suck up to the establishment? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Volunteer for Romney?   

That figures. If he is a rmoney backer he has zero credibility and I see nothing in what you posted that makes him any type of expert on what he was commenting on. Being a lawyer and also getting his paycheck from government work doesn't do much either.

 

However,

Quote

in 1994, Gary Johnson started a door-to-door handyman business to help pay his way through college. Twenty years later, he had grown that business into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico, with more than 1,000 employees. Not surprisingly, Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that public policy decisions should be based on costs and benefits rather than strict ideology.

He cut taxes 14 times while never raising them. When he left office, New Mexico was one of only four states in the country with a balanced budget.

I will take that over Hillary any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

That figures. If he is a rmoney backer he has zero credibility and I see nothing in what you posted that makes him any type of expert on what he was commenting on. Being a lawyer and also getting his paycheck from government work doesn't do much either.

 

However,

I will take that over Hillary any day.

That is faint praise.  But, do you dispute the facts in the article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an article on him which stated he raised 'spending' 7 times and came in with a 4 bil debt in NM and when he left it was 7 bil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Voters in Republican Primaries seem to like him better than any of the alternatives in a number of states.  

= fawning all over Trump. 

He demolished the competition.
He easily became the Republican nominee.
He is not in any way, shape or form a conservative.

Who cares what the Republican establishment thinks? Most of them are even less conservative than Trump.

Who do you think is more conservative, Trump or Johnson? Or maybe the answer is Hillary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cooter said:

I read an article on him which stated he raised 'spending' 7 times and came in with a 4 bil debt in NM and when he left it was 7 bil

 

That sounds like about the same number of times Trump has declared bankruptcy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Left office with New Mexico as one of the only four states in the country with a balanced budget
  • Left New Mexico with a budget surplus
  • Used Line Item Veto thousands of times to trim the budget
  • Vetoed 750 bills during his time in office; more than all other governors combined
  • Cut over 1,200 government jobs without firing anyone
  • Created more than 20,000 new jobs
  • First New Mexico Governor to challenge education status quo and propose statewide voucher program
  • Restored State General Fund reserves to more than $222 million from a low of $28.1 million
  • Limited annual state budget growth to 5.0% during eight years in office
  • Cut taxes 14 times while never raising them—a first for New Mexico
  • Vetoed 32% of the total number of bills submitted for his signature

Gary Johnson's New Mexico Fiscal Record, Denounced, Defended, and Debated

The Libertarian presidential contender was better on taxing then spending, but the power of the veto can only go so far when you are governor and the legislature ultimately controls the purse.

Brian Doherty|May. 25, 2016 1:55 pm

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson does like to sell himself as the only true fiscal conservative, compared to the major party candidates he expects to be up against in November, if the delegates to the Libertarian Party National Convention chose him this weekend in Orlando.

GJ for President facebookGJ for President facebook

National Review attacked his spending record as governor of New Mexico in an article by James Spiller on Monday, under a rough headline saying "Never Gary Johnson."

 

Some of the bill of indictment against Johnson, from Spiller:

When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico in 1995, the budget stood at $4.397 billion. When he left in 2003, it had grown to $7.721 billion, an increase of 7.29 percent a year. Of the eleven governors who filed to run for president this year (two Democrats, Johnson, and  eight Republicans), only one had a worse record on spending growth...

....Johnson inherited a debt of $1.8 billion and left a debt of $4.6 billion, a rate of increase unmatched by the 22 governors in either party who have filed for presidential primaries in the past two decades, with the exception of Governor Tom Vilsack (D., Iowa) in 2007.....

Johnson is also slammed for instituting a "refundable tax credit" to encourage filmmaking in his state, and for not being very fine-grained and specific in how he intends to reach his goal of cutting federal spending by 43 percent if he's president.

Paul Gessing of the free market think tank the Rio Grande Foundation from New Mexico appears in National Review today with a more nuanced defense of Johnson. Highlights:

Spiller “credits” Johnson with spending money he had little control over. His spending numbers include federal dollars that flow into the state for everything from Medicaid to education. Including just the General Fund that the legislature and governor must agree to each year, Johnson’s first budget was $2.7 billion and his final budget, eight years later, was $3.9 billion (an increase of about 41 percent). Thus, under Johnson, New Mexico’s General Fund spending grew by 4.67 percent annually, not the outrageous 7.29 percent rate cited by Spiller....

....Johnson too pushed tax cuts while in office, but [his successor as New Mexico Governor Bill] Richardson was able to follow through, taking the state’s top income-tax rate from 8.2 to 4.9 percent. Richardson succeeded where Johnson failed in cutting taxes in large part because during Johnson’s tenure the New Mexico legislature was controlled entirely by Democrats. These were no razor-thin margins either: Democrats held approximately 60 percent of all legislative seats.....

Gessing explains how the legislature Johnson faced stymied him from doing as much good as he would have liked to, including that "Every year Johnson proposed school-choice vouchers and every year the Democrats in the legislature killed them." Gessing agrees the filmmaking tax credit is a terrible idea.

While Johnson had the veto and used it around over 700 times—he thinks that's more than all his fellow governors at the time combined—the legislature ultimately has the power of the purse. On his way out Johnson vetoed an entire budget for 2003 but got overridden. What New Mexico spent during his administration was somewhat, but by no means ultimately, up to him.

For more context, the Cato Institute in its grading of the fiscal records of the governors during Johnson's administration had these positive things to say in their 2002 report:

Johnson....favors school vouchers, term limits, privately run prisons, lean budgets, and deep tax cuts.... In his first term, he vetoed 200 bills—many of them spending bills, which he labeled as profligate. The state Democrats made defeating Johnson their top priority in 1998, but he won anyway. ....

Through determination and wearing down the opposition, he has had legislative successes. He has cut the state income tax, the gasoline tax, the state capital gains tax, and the unemployment tax. In 2001, he wanted a further 7 percent reduction in income tax rates. The legislature cut the tax less than he wanted, so he vetoed the bill. In 1999, he vetoed a 12 cent per pack cigarette tax hike because he opposes all tax hikes. (He recently did sign off on a tobacco tax with the condition that the revenues be used to offset other tax cuts.) In 2000, he signed a residential property tax cap that will limit increases in valuations to 3 percent per year. Johnson has successfully sponsored other government reform initiatives such as an electricity deregulation bill, a 10 percent reduction in state payrolls, and a Medicaid cost-cutting plan....

The Speaker of the House in New Mexico, Ben Lujan, recently noted after an override of a Johnson veto: “There is no executive fiat in this state. The governor must have the consent of the legislature for fiscal action.” That explains why Gary Johnson’s grade is not even higher in this report card. [He received a "B" that year.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the general fund went up 5% per year.  Am I correct in assuming NM economy did not grow 5% per year?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, delcecchi said:

That is faint praise.  But, do you dispute the facts in the article?

I wouldn't call them facts.

9 hours ago, delcecchi said:

So, the general fund went up 5% per year.  Am I correct in assuming NM economy did not grow 5% per year?  

Probably not

Edited by PurpleFloyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PurpleFloyd said:

I wouldn't call them facts.

Probably not

So the NM economy did grow 5% per year?  That what you are saying, bunkie? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, delcecchi said:

So the NM economy did grow 5% per year?  That what you are saying, bunkie? 

Ii am saying the opinion piece you posted was full of assumptions, mischaracterized data and was not worth the time it took to read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 5% per year figure came from the link that was posted from some guy defending him.  Besides, a fact is a fact.  He was governor for 8 years during which the NM budget grew 5% per year, is that not a fact?  Or is it not a fact? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2016 at 8:01 AM, Big Dave2 said:
 

Paul Gessing of the free market think tank the Rio Grande Foundation from New Mexico appears in National Review today with a more nuanced defense of Johnson. Highlights:

Spiller “credits” Johnson with spending money he had little control over. His spending numbers include federal dollars that flow into the state for everything from Medicaid to education. Including just the General Fund that the legislature and governor must agree to each year, Johnson’s first budget was $2.7 billion and his final budget, eight years later, was $3.9 billion (an increase of about 41 percent). Thus, under Johnson, New Mexico’s General Fund spending grew by 4.67 percent annually, not the outrageous 7.29 percent rate cited by Spiller....


 

 

In contrast, we have Obama's record....

spending.png

 

So in 2008 we were at 3 trillion and 2015 was 3.8 T

So under the conservative Gary Johnson, spending went up by 41% and under the Liberal Democrat Obama spending went up

(I'll even use 2007 as the baseline at 2.8 T. ) 35 percent or 3.8% per year.

 

Even in profligate Minnesota, spending over the 2007 to 2015 period went from 21.2 to 26.2 Billion or 23 percent.   

 

Data for the exact same period of 1995 to 2003 in Minnesota is hard to find so I used the profligate liberal Dayton administration...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is old news about Johnson.  He was vetted back in 2012, and I'm surprised he is still actually considered a front runner for the Libertarian nomination.

The folks who are more up to speed on the libertarian candidates are backing Austin Peterson.  

Like Mary Matalin, for example:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-05-05/why-mary-matalin-is-registering-as-a-libertarian

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now